I can't speak to the "future technology" that Bush alluded to in his SOTU address, but the history of ethanol gives me no confidence that there is anything here. Ethanol is all about rent-seeking, not energy Independence. Quality studies have consistently shown that the whole life-cycle energy use of ethanol is far higher than what it provides. In other words, at least with current technologies, every gallon of ethanol used actually INCREASES total petroleum use. Its hard to find any scientist outside of the ADM boardroom or the state of Iowa that takes ethanol seriously. If we took the small step of moving the Iowa caucuses out of the first primary position in the presidential race, ethanol might go away.

Update: I am in sports heaven today, at the golf tournament all day and watching the Superbowl tonight, so I still have not gotten back to this topic in depth, but our commenters have taken over for me on this one anyway, so I may just kick back with another beer let y'all do the work for a while. No one would be happier than me to find that we could grow things cheaply to net increase our supply of clean fuels. Unfortunately, I am not optimistic about the interaction of the government with any market for things that grow.

For some time, I have secretly harbored the theory, without any scientific knowledge to back it up, that somehow bioengineering might long term lead to the most efficient solar conversion technology. And in a sense, this is what we are talking about here -- finding a
biological solution to converting sunlight into energy in a usable form. I suspect we are on the cusp of an exponential growth curve in biology like we experienced with thermodynamics, electromagnetics, and semiconductors over the last two centuries. But if we are at such an inflection point, it just highlights how hopeless it is for government in general and George Bush in particular to pick winners at this point. What combustion technology might the government have locked us into in 1800? What computing technology might we have been locked into in 1950?

The Organic Foods Trade Association has this terrific spoof on Star Wars, aimed at warning consumers about the "dark side of the farm", which for them of course are non-organic foods. Meet Obi Wan Cannoli and Chew-broccoli.

I am kindof neutral on the whole organic foods thing - while happy about the range of new choices available to consumers, organic proponents tend to have statist tendencies and seem all too quick to welcome government intervention to aid their cause and regulate away consumer choices they don't agree with. I have never really been terrified by genetic manipulation of foods and I tend to group those who oppose irradiation of foods to reduce diseases as roughly equivalent to Luddites who oppose vaccinations.

The interviewer characterizes Hayek's Road to Serfdom as "a bible for people on the conservative political side". I really must object to this characterization, and I'd like to think that Hayek would too. Indeed, one of his most powerful essays was titled "Why I am Not a Conservative".

The Federal Communications Commission declared today that a type of Internet telephony service offered by Vonage Holdings Corp. called DigitalVoice is not subject to traditional state public utility regulation.

The Commission also stated that other types of IP-enabled services, such as those offered by cable companies, that have basic characteristics similar to DigitalVoice would also not be subject to traditional state public utility regulation.

This may be good news. If it keeps regulation low and lets this new technology continue to innovate and find its way in the market, great. If it is just two bullies snarling over who gets to take my lunch money, then its not-so-good news.

I posted yesterday about my issues with the current Libertarian party and some thoughts about a return of classical liberalism. A big part of classical liberalism was the so-called Scottish Enlightenment, discussed today at The Knowlege Problem, with links to many other sources.